No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Bitbar vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Bitbar
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
29th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Platforms (9th)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Bitbar is 1.5%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.8%, down from 9.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.8%
Bitbar1.5%
Other90.7%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1288116 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Digital & Cognitive Services at a tech company with 11-50 employees
A testing platform with a good API for apps, but pricing is complicated
I like that the AI Testbot is a near-zero code application for testing. For this use case, the function is good. The services are robust. Game testing and the API for apps are also good. From the perspective of pricing, licensing, ease of use, integration with other applications, impact complexity, and integration with other tools, we're pretty much very satisfied.
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The overall product is awesome for device fragmentation, but not for automation."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"From the perspective of pricing, licensing, ease of use, integration with other applications, impact complexity, and integration with other tools, we're pretty much very satisfied."
"The feature that I like the most is that you can use different frameworks, whether it's APM or something else, and you don't need to worry about the framework."
"​Record and Replay to ease onboarding of new users."
"The most valuable feature for me is that it works on multiple platforms and technologies."
"For traditional automation, approximately half of our tests end up automated. Therefore, we are saving half the testing time by pushing it off to automation. That gives it an intrinsic benefit of more time for manual testers and business testers to work on possibly more important and interesting things. For some of our applications, they don't just have to do happy path testing anymore, they can go more in-depth and breadth into the process."
"It's easy to use for beginners and non-technical people."
"The ease of record and playback as well as descriptive programming are the most valuable features of UFT (QTP)."
"For test automation, it helps to speed up the testing and to speed up the software delivery, especially for HPE UFT because you have lots of test automation tools."
"It has definitely cut down on a lot of time by using this application, as running our ten environments manually would have taken most of the day rather than doing them simultaneously, which saves me hours."
"Has improved our organization by allowing us to obtain fast, detailed information about the behavior of our products and to supply this to the customer, enabling us to work together without the need for special programming knowledge."
 

Cons

"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Improvement of the product could be made by running the dashboard part, it gets stuck sometimes."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Some stages of its automation is not working correctly and I need to make changes in the code created by Testdroid."
"Additionally, there are hanging issues where it becomes unresponsive, which can be improved."
"It looks like User Acceptance Testing of the product is getting bypassed entirely because this design has precedence in UFT."
"It needs better compatibility with Chrome and Safari, which would lead to this being a better product."
"One of the drawbacks is that mobile performance testing is in need of improvement."
"I am not sure if they have a vision of how they want to position the leads in the market, because if you look at Tosca, Tosca is one of the automation tools that have a strategy, and it recently updated its strategy with SAP. They are positioning them as a type of continuous testing automation tool. And if you notice Worksoft, particularly the one tool for your enterprise application, your Worksoft is positioning. I am not sure if Micro Focus UFT has a solid strategy in place. They must differentiate themselves so that people recognize Micro Focus UFT for that reason."
"Micro Focus UFT One could improve by having more maintenance. Every time when we run the solution and develop something, the next time when we run it it doesn't recognize the object. I have to redesign the object again and then run the solution. It's really a headache, it's not consistent."
"We have to download it, then install it on our own machines and the machines sometimes aren't stable; since we have PDIs, also the UFT isn't stable and I don't know yet where the connection is."
"I would like to see them remove the shortcoming of working with .NET applications, as there is not much support provided for automating applications developed on .NET."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"The tool's price is high."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
"The solution is priced reasonably for what features it is providing. However, it might be expensive for some."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
15%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
9%
University
7%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
7%
Computer Software Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
 

Also Known As

Testdroid
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Rovio, Paf, Supercell, NITRO Games, Seriously, AVG, Google, Bosch, Yahoo, Microsoft, Yandex, Mozilla, eBay, PayPal, TESCO, Cisco WebEx, Facebook, LinkedIn, skype, Subway
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,800 professionals have used our research since 2012.